SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA—Samsung rested its case shortly after today's lunch break, as Apple v. Samsung pushed into its final hours.

But lawyers representing the Korean electronics giant clearly felt like they had more of a case to make. One of them asked US District Judge Lucy Koh to file a list of the witnesses it would have put on the stand if it weren't for the time limitations. But she denied even that request.

"Samsung made a strategic decision to spend more time cross-examining Apple's witnesses during Apple's affirmative case than Apple used," she said. "You had to make a calculation and be disciplined about how your time was spent."

About half of Samsung's time—almost 13 hours—was spent cross-examining Apple witnesses in the first part of the case, Koh noted. She rattled through the hour totals from each of the first several days of the trial, in which Samsung used about as much time as Apple did, even though Samsung had yet to present much of its own evidence or witnesses. "I make the finding that any inability of Samsung to present more of its own witnesses were because of its own decisions about time allocation," she told lawyers just before the afternoon break.

Apple, meanwhile, still had a few hours to rebut Samsung's patent claims, which cover parts of the 3G standard as well as popular features like sending a picture over e-mail. In rapid succession, the company put on witnesses that said Samsung's patents were all invalid and Apple had not infringed. The Cupertino company told Koh earlier today that it would bring nearly 20 witnesses forward before its case ended, a claim that Koh found incredulous.

Testimony in the case is likely to finish up tomorrow; Apple has less than four hours left while Samsung has just 46 minutes. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.

278 Reader Comments

I will be shocked if Apple does not win. She seems to be clearly a fan of Apple according to what I have read. She has rejected a lot of Samsung's evidence. I haven't heard much about Apple's evidence getting rejected.

I am guessing either way this ends up, some one is sure to appeal. Which will make this whole case a waste of every ones time and money, not to mention tax dollars.

Will someone impartial to the case write these updates on the Samsung/Apple case? It's jarring reading someone constantly trying to put Samsung in a negative light. Everyone has feelings about the case; we should at least have an author who's respectful to all parties.

I think I remember Joe Brodkin's articles being a little more impartial.

The time limits seem off to me. Apple intentionally left Samsung with a choice of either weak cross-examination or weak witness presentation. That's great from Apple's perspective, but seems like the judge is hostile to Samsung.

Will someone impartial to the case write these updates on the Samsung/Apple case? It's jarring reading someone constantly trying to put Samsung in a negative light. Everyone has feelings about the case; we should at least have an author who's respectful to all parties.

I think I remember Joe Brodkin's articles being a little more impartial.

It's not up to Koh who wins. You know that much about the court system, right?

yes, but a biased/hostile judge can do what Judge Koh is doing; dismissing evidence, giving what seems to me to be a very limited time frame to present its evidence. this will lead to a jury that will only really hear Apple's points. the counter is either dismissed or simply not given time to be presented.

She has rejected a lot of Samsung's evidence. I haven't heard much about Apple's evidence getting rejected.

I thought a lot of that was related to Samsung having missed their deadlines. Could it be that Samsung's lawyers fumbled the ball more times than Apple's? Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the judge is pro-Apple when she yelled at them this morning for wanting so many witnesses tomorrow (at one point asking if the legal team was on crack). It seems like both sides are equally capable of pissing her off.

Will someone impartial to the case write these updates on the Samsung/Apple case? It's jarring reading someone constantly trying to put Samsung in a negative light. Everyone has feelings about the case; we should at least have an author who's respectful to all parties.

I think I remember Joe Brodkin's articles being a little more impartial.

FFS.

Oh, I see. So you can be bothered by someone else's post about Samsung vs. Apple, yet other people, like me, can't be bothered by other people writing about Samsung vs. Apple.

It's not up to Koh who wins. You know that much about the court system, right?

yes, but a biased/hostile judge can do what Judge Koh is doing; dismissing evidence, giving what seems to me to be a very limited time frame to present its evidence. this will lead to a jury that will only really hear Apple's points. the counter is either dismissed or simply not given time to be presented.

The time was the same for both. Everyone knew what the rules were. The judge is acting within her power to manage what I think we can probably agree is a circus of a trial. And everyone involved has been chewed out for jerking the court around.

If this had gone smooth as butter, everyone would be whining that justice wasn't served. So the judge lays down some terse rules of the road. And now everyone's whining that justice isn't being served.

It's a lame spectator who complains about the officials before understanding the performance of the players on the field. And this crap is why I hope I never wind up in court.

The time limits seem off to me. Apple intentionally left Samsung with a choice of either weak cross-examination or weak witness presentation. That's great from Apple's perspective, but seems like the judge is hostile to Samsung.

Each side got the same amount of time to present: Apple had to make the same choices Samsung did (do I present witnesses now, or save time for cross-examining Samsung's witnesses later?). I suppose there is an advantage in going first, but IRRC the order was determined randomly...you can't fault Apple for winning the coin toss, or whaterver it was.

I will be shocked if Apple does not win. She seems to be clearly a fan of Apple according to what I have read. She has rejected a lot of Samsung's evidence. I haven't heard much about Apple's evidence getting rejected.

I am guessing either way this ends up, some one is sure to appeal. Which will make this whole case a waste of every ones time and money, not to mention tax dollars.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I find it shocking that people in a profession requiring good logical skills make such baseless claims, illogical points and gut feel based on others' preferences for who wins the case.

I personally *AM* a strong advocate for IP protection, having run a small business for a few years with an invention, and thinking I have another up my sleeve. The last thing I want to hear is somebody who knows nothing about a case or the law, claiming to know what are fair ways to handle the IP.

Apple is claiming over $2 billion in damages but only 25 hours were allocated for each side? I can understand the importance to keeping the pertinent information but this is too important that an arbitrary number of hours to be assigned for each party. Judge Koh is a joke in this case. She set meaningless guidelines to the detriment of whichever party that the jury will side with. I can understand to a certain extent in denying evidence beyond the allocated time limits but the court should show some leniency (going both ways).

Will someone impartial to the case write these updates on the Samsung/Apple case? It's jarring reading someone constantly trying to put Samsung in a negative light. Everyone has feelings about the case; we should at least have an author who's respectful to all parties.

I think I remember Joe Brodkin's articles being a little more impartial.

FFS.

Oh, I see. So you can be bothered by someone else's post about Samsung vs. Apple, yet other people, like me, can't be bothered by other people writing about Samsung vs. Apple.

Go screw yourself.

I'm standing up for actual journalists capable of earning a living by knowing what they're doing and writing articulately about it. I'll argue about the case all you want, and I don't rule out that I could be an asshole about it, but that's apparently not what we're doing. It looks like we're here to moan about the judge and the author who's been working on telling us about this case. So screw myself? Again, god help us all if our fates are ever in the hands of this kind of general public. That would be a far greater failure of justice than things like time limits on witnesses.

Will someone impartial to the case write these updates on the Samsung/Apple case? It's jarring reading someone constantly trying to put Samsung in a negative light. Everyone has feelings about the case; we should at least have an author who's respectful to all parties.

I think I remember Joe Brodkin's articles being a little more impartial.

FFS.

Oh, I see. So you can be bothered by someone else's post about Samsung vs. Apple, yet other people, like me, can't be bothered by other people writing about Samsung vs. Apple.

Go screw yourself.

FFS.

The endless allegations of bias against Ars, the judge, and the guy selling hot dogs outside the courthouse are as baseless, childish, and nauseating in this thread as they are in all the other threads about this case.

You have every right to kvetch about perceived bias against Apple or Samsung, but I also have the right to opine that such kvetching is stupid.

It's a lame spectator who complains about the officials before understanding the performance of the players on the field. And this crap is why I hope I never wind up in court.

I've had the misfortune of twice facing trumped-up accusations. Neither got as far as court, but the justice system was sniffing around. In one case it took months to resolve the bogus nature.

And I've twice sat on juries, one a Federal court case, both for very serious charges with long prison terms at stake.

In my personal cases, I eventually had no issues because I treated the accusations and especially the procedures in hearings, etc., seriously. The stupidity I see about patenting rounded-corner rectangles would have tossed me in prison had I adopted such a cavalier attitude. To a lesser extent, the prosecution in one case, the defense in another, made it obvious which way our jury should vote.

I will wish that should you ever face court proceedings, that you gulp and think seriously about what you need to do, and get counsel that treats your case more professionally than what the stories portray about Quinn. As opposed to the screams of bias here, you should be OK. Yeah, I think the System kinda works, albeit very imperfectly.

But that's also a very selective view. Maybe Quinn knew Samsung was on the losing end of the case from the get-go, not due to arbitrary and capricious rulings from the bench, but because of their client's pig-headed and callous indifference to standards of fairness, and US law. Maybe, all they could do was to obfuscate and try to get the jury to sympathize with witnesses such as the mom, on purely emotional grounds.

After the trials where I was a juror, we got to discuss the tactics with the lawyers. This case, bound to be appealed for a half century or so, will be pretty dusty before anybody really opens up.

Apple is claiming over $2 billion in damages but only 25 hours were allocated for each side? I can understand the importance to keeping the pertinent information but this is too important that an arbitrary number of hours to be assigned for each party. Judge Koh is a joke in this case. She set meaningless guidelines to the detriment of whichever party that the jury will side with. I can understand to a certain extent in denying evidence beyond the allocated time limits but the court should show some leniency (going both ways).

This is my take as well. The stakes are way too high, and the claims too complicated, to be properly explored in such a short time.

My own view is that such limited time heavily favours Apple, as their lack of actual evidence and compelling arguments will not look as weak against a Samsung without time to present the entirety of their case. Especially on the functional patents which I feel are much more important and should be more strongly protected than the stupid trade dress garbage.

Either way, justice is not served when either side is forced to cull compelling evidence and testimony from their case to satisfy arbitrary rules of the court.

Are time limits like this common in disputes involving billions of dollars in damages? Seems a little ridiculous to me that both sides wouldn't get at least several days or weeks worth of testimony.

Yeah, I calculated about $8billion at stake ÷ 25 hours = $320 million per hour of argumentation. Several witnesses got asked their billing rate, but I predict the next such trial, the lawyers' rates will have skyrocketed to reflect the importance of professional counsel.

OTOH, I get what the judge was doing. This case started over a year ago; I imagine — the parties' Accounts Payable Depts will get an idea, and the Court will assess costs, so someday it will be knowable — MANY man-years of work by people whose contribution to society is needed for other things than who has the right to use rubber-band metaphors in mobile devices.

Apple is claiming over $2 billion in damages but only 25 hours were allocated for each side? I can understand the importance to keeping the pertinent information but this is too important that an arbitrary number of hours to be assigned for each party. Judge Koh is a joke in this case. She set meaningless guidelines to the detriment of whichever party that the jury will side with. I can understand to a certain extent in denying evidence beyond the allocated time limits but the court should show some leniency (going both ways).

This is my take as well. The stakes are way too high, and the claims too complicated, to be properly explored in such a short time.

My own view is that such limited time heavily favours Apple, as their lack of actual evidence and compelling arguments will not look as weak against a Samsung without time to present the entirety of their case. Especially on the functional patents which I feel are much more important and should be more strongly protected than the stupid trade dress garbage.

Either way, justice is not served when either side is forced to cull compelling evidence and testimony from their case to satisfy arbitrary rules of the court.

Thirded. Someone posted in another one of these threads that it is far simpler and quicker to make an accusation than to provide detailed proof against it, and I think that is a good point - irrespective of only having 25 hours to present $2B worth of evidence.

Apart from the lawyers being the big winners, no matter the outcome, big respect for Koh J here. "Cut the crap and get on with it. You have 25 hours. *puts on glasses* Deal with it." is an attitude that might be worth adopting for a lot of cases!

Each side got the same amount of time to present: Apple had to make the same choices Samsung did (do I present witnesses now, or save time for cross-examining Samsung's witnesses later?). I suppose there is an advantage in going first, but IRRC the order was determined randomly...you can't fault Apple for winning the coin toss, or whaterver it was.

It seems to me there's a HUGE advantage in going first, because you can practice the testimony of the witnesses you want to call, and you can get the information you want out there very quickly. Cross examination is inherently slower because it has to be reactive to what was said, it has to probe, and it has to follow a line of reasoning that's apparent to the jury. If they wanted to be impartial, they should have made cross examination count for a smaller time factor.

My own view is that such limited time heavily favours Apple, as their lack of actual evidence and compelling arguments will not look as weak against a Samsung without time to present the entirety of their case. Especially on the functional patents which I feel are much more important and should be more strongly protected than the stupid trade dress garbage.

Either way, justice is not served when either side is forced to cull compelling evidence and testimony from their case to satisfy arbitrary rules of the court.

There's a recent Groklaw post that evaluates what Apple had to show, and analyzes Apple's tactics. Groklaw, as most know is EXTREMELY hostile to Apple, and after a calm start, the post veers back to a screaming hysteria closer to what I usually see there, that Apple was trying to suck all the blood from the citizenry of the world. But reading the first part you get the impression that Apple's case was at least very coherent and maybe actually quite strong, in line with precedent as our legal system loves.

I didn't see a similar analysis of Samsung's filings with the court. Links welcome.

Forcing companies to “cull compelling evidence” is necessary if there be a fair trial on any kind of schedule. Fairness is NOT served by surprise, last-minute “evidence” that a party cannot hope to refute, or even analyze. This case has been going on for over a year, NOT rushed.

If you were reading today's tweets, even one of Samsung's witnesses confessed that Samsung kept changing the documents he was supposed to analyze, altering them as recently as one day before the court deadline. This says volumes about Samsung's intention to reply seriously to extremely serious charges. Perhaps there was a major strategic change by the legal team; perhaps the raw evidence was found not in line with the initial strategy… I'll be curious to hear any tidbits about how this soup got made.

Apple is claiming over $2 billion in damages but only 25 hours were allocated for each side? I can understand the importance to keeping the pertinent information but this is too important that an arbitrary number of hours to be assigned for each party. Judge Koh is a joke in this case. She set meaningless guidelines to the detriment of whichever party that the jury will side with. I can understand to a certain extent in denying evidence beyond the allocated time limits but the court should show some leniency (going both ways).

This is my take as well. The stakes are way too high, and the claims too complicated, to be properly explored in such a short time.

My own view is that such limited time heavily favours Apple, as their lack of actual evidence and compelling arguments will not look as weak against a Samsung without time to present the entirety of their case. Especially on the functional patents which I feel are much more important and should be more strongly protected than the stupid trade dress garbage.

Either way, justice is not served when either side is forced to cull compelling evidence and testimony from their case to satisfy arbitrary rules of the court.

Thirded. Someone posted in another one of these threads that it is far simpler and quicker to make an accusation than to provide detailed proof against it, and I think that is a good point - irrespective of only having 25 hours to present $2B worth of evidence.

This whole trial has basically been a waste of time.

There has been *plenty* of opportunity for both sides to come to an amicable agreement one way or another outside of court. While I agree that "true" justice is unlikely to be properly observed in this particular case, it may be more valuable to set a precedent that in such disputes "somebody gonna get hurt reaaal bad" if you take it to court.

These parties are not clueless tenants or helpless geriatrics. They are huge multinational tech corporations run by, and capable of acquiring, some of the savviest business minds around. They should be able to work out a mutually non-destructive deal.

Each side got the same amount of time to present: Apple had to make the same choices Samsung did (do I present witnesses now, or save time for cross-examining Samsung's witnesses later?). I suppose there is an advantage in going first, but IRRC the order was determined randomly...you can't fault Apple for winning the coin toss, or whaterver it was.

It seems to me there's a HUGE advantage in going first, because you can practice the testimony of the witnesses you want to call, and you can get the information you want out there very quickly. Cross examination is inherently slower because it has to be reactive to what was said, it has to probe, and it has to follow a line of reasoning that's apparent to the jury. If they wanted to be impartial, they should have made cross examination count for a smaller time factor.

Yes, agreed, there could be an advantage to going first.

But you overstate it; perhaps you don't know the requirements that every witness be named, the purpose of his testimony be disclosed early on. Often (almost always?) the other party will have had the opportunity to take a deposition about their knowledge that they will present.

Anyway, it's a little early for the whining about unfairness. Perhaps the jury will find 100% for Samsung, with jurors thumbing their noses at Apple's counsel, and it will be seen to have been perfectly fair, after all.

There's a recent Groklaw post that evaluates what Apple had to show, and analyzes Apple's tactics. Groklaw, as most know is EXTREMELY hostile to Apple, and after a calm start, the post veers back to a screaming hysteria closer to what I usually see there, that Apple was trying to suck all the blood from the citizenry of the world. But reading the first part you get the impression that Apple's case was at least very coherent and maybe actually quite strong, in line with precedent as our legal system loves.

I'm not really arguing about the quality of the arguments or who's right or wrong. Just that not having enough time to present a compelling counter-argument is definitely a disadvantage. Apple's claims are much broader and more simply explained than Samsung's defense needs to be in this case. It's easy to show that they look similar, it's harder to show how and why that that similarity is not due to copying, as that has to deal in details.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think this sort of copying should be explicitly allowed and that Samsung has done absolutely nothing wrong, they've got the short end of the stick given equal time allotment due to the necessary complexity of their counter argument and the fact that in general they need to be more reactionary and expositive.

Quote:

Forcing companies to “cull compelling evidence” is necessary if there be a fair trial on any kind of schedule. Fairness is NOT served by surprise, last-minute “evidence” that a party cannot hope to refute, or even analyze. This case has been going on for over a year, NOT rushed.

Fairness is served by having each side present the meat of their arguments in entirety. I'm not arguing for the court to get mired in minutae, but it seems both sides in their case were rushing it, and I'm not sure how that serves fairness. It seems obvious that potentially critical arguments or witnesses may have been missed due to this restriction, and I don't think that's right. I don't expect perfection, but 25 hours doesn't seem very long at all for a case of this complexity and magnitude.

While I agree that "true" justice is unlikely to be properly observed in this particular case, it may be more valuable to set a precedent that in such disputes "somebody gonna get hurt reaaal bad" if you take it to court.

So you think Samsung should lose to send a message to companies doing what Apple has done here. What? That seems to send exactly the opposite message you're going for, and it's exactly that which scares me about a potential Apple victory.

Quote:

They should be able to work out a mutually non-destructive deal.

Perhaps that would have been prudent, but I'm sure Samsung is having a hard time seeing where it infringed, and I'm sure Apple was being their usual pigheaded selves and asking for something ridiculous and refusing to budge. As has been said before, they look like schoolyard bullies that have backed Samsung against a wall when it refused to give up its lunch money.

The time limits seem off to me. Apple intentionally left Samsung with a choice of either weak cross-examination or weak witness presentation. That's great from Apple's perspective, but seems like the judge is hostile to Samsung.

Each side got the same amount of time to present: Apple had to make the same choices Samsung did (do I present witnesses now, or save time for cross-examining Samsung's witnesses later?). I suppose there is an advantage in going first, but IRRC the order was determined randomly...you can't fault Apple for winning the coin toss, or whaterver it was.

No, because of court procedures Apple gets to call, then Samsung, then Apple again. Also, Apple is intentionally cherry-picking which, since they called witnesses first, meant they have the ability to take minimal questions now, then either cross-examine Samsung's witnesses heavily _or_ call further witnesses.

It's interesting watching this case develop, not so much because of the nature of the case (YAPLS - yet another patent lawsuit), but because I've found it interesting to discover more about the nature of the US legal system.

I'm not sure how many more articles I can stomach, but if I reach my limit I'll stop reading them. Maybe others should do the same?

Well of course Apple wanted to present 20 witnesses; rebuttal by Samsung would be pretty much non-existent. They could say Apple invented the fork with no objection.

Why wasnt the number of witnesses limited?

Im sure it had something to do with your mother. Sheesh, yeah if you actually looked into the case instead of wondering out loud for someone to spoon feed you something like. "'Cause the Judge is soooo unfair!!!" Samsung knows the rules they have 45 or so minutes left to object to whatever they like. The rules were made to be fair to both sides, which is what a Judges is meant to do in a public case as well as inform the jury what laws are affected. How long would you say would be fair 50 hours, 1000 hours, what would you think is fair? Or just let them talk themselves into next year until both the jury and judge are numb with the pain?

"Samsung made a strategic decision to spend more time cross-examining Apple's witnesses during Apple's affirmative case than Apple used," she said. "You had to make a calculation, and be disciplined about how your time was spent."

As if we all didn't know it already, this is proof positive that American "justice" has nothing to do with actual justice and everything to do with who can afford the best lawyer.

"You had to make a calculation, and be disciplined about how your time was spent."

I have no love for lawyers, but good grief, who puts a time limit on the truth? Let alone the right to face and address your accusers?

I know a lot of shenigans are going on but at least let them make their best case. Meanwhile I suggest the following closing argument: mobile phones are square. Apple made a square phone. We made a square phone. Other companies also make square phones. The defense rests.

…I'm sure Samsung is having a hard time seeing where it infringed, and I'm sure Apple was being their usual pigheaded selves and asking for something ridiculous and refusing to budge.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but there are four five basic facts that I think blow away any support for your claim that Samsung got blindsided here.

First, Jobs and Cook flew to Korea two years ago to ask their “valued partner” not to copy their designs. We don't know the specifics, but a CEO/COO don't waste their time on small stuff. Pointedly, Apple did NOT threaten a lawsuit, by both sides' account.

Second, even as Google advised Samsung that their designs were too similar, Samsung engineers developed a 130+ page description of Apple features they needed to copy.

Third, Apple sued in the year AFTER the Korea trip, and Samsung has had about 16 months to read up on the Latham Act and the court precedents relevant to the specific charges.

Samsung is a global megacorp, with executives who have led the smartphone charge extremely successfully. They get the big bucks for aggressive, assertive, risk-taking and even daring business leadership, not for playing jacks or holding their pinkies right while they sip tea.

Finally, Samsung went out and hired one of the best IP law firms on the planet. Presumably, they collaborated on how serious the charges were, what types of evidence would show innocence, etc.

And after all this, the news accounts are that Samsung/Quinn mounted a flailing defense more interested in how much Apple's experts got paid, than in showing that the coincidences in design were not such as to rise to illegal infringement of Apple's claims.

Apple MAY have refused to budge, but the history above suggests more than a little resistance by Samsung to address the concerns. Your characterizations might carry a bit more weight if you supported them with a bit more than vague impressions that obviously didn't come from close reading of the case, even by partisan sources.